How To Make the Data Quality Act Honestly Effective

Open e-mail to Rep Neugebauer:

Randy,

Sen. James Inhofe recently wrote a letter to Lisa Jackson, the EPA Administrator. The letter concerned EPA's new Utilities MACT rule, which involves air pollution from coal-fueled power plants. In that letter, Sen. Inhofe refers to the Data Quality Act (DQA). My present e-mail is concerned with the DQA. I will return later to discuss MACT in a separate e-mail.

Congress likely had all good intentions in passing the Data Quality Act, but has missed target, which was to ensure that all data used by the Administration is of sound quality.

The DQA directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue government-wide guidelines that "provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies".

The problem arises in the administration of the act by the OMB.

The Executive Office of the President has 14 entities, of which the OMB is the largest. The Director, is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The President controls the actions of the Director and presumably data quality through the job appointment and the Director's salary. Confirmation by the Senate starts the appointment, after which the President has full control, resulting again in the fox being in charge of the chicken house.

When the constitution was established, the framers saw the need for checks and balances among the 3 branches of government. They likely did not foresee how complex government would eventually become. It is also a rule of thumb that the more complex an operation is, the more likely there will be fraud and deceit. We see from the above that the potential for presidential partiality in operation of the OMB can seriously jeopardize integrity of OMB reports and conclusions, in spite of the Data Quality Act. This must also be true in many other segments of government.

There are some obvious answers to this. Shrink the size of government, which would automatically simplify operations and give increased transparency. In addition, both House and Senate should have over-seeing responsibility, where each Department Director's performance, including entities of the Executive Office of the President, is periodically reviewed. This function can be assigned to existing committees in the House and Senate. The House, Senate, and President should each have a vote on each Director. Two votes against would require an immediate replacement.